Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 9523070" data-attributes="member: 6796468">Yeah, obviously, I mean. It's not like he was in charge of the company and had any kind of decision-making power on what was or wasn't published. Just kinda stood around looking pretty and occasionally wrote forewords!Yeah, I covered that with the "Backlash from people who might be a danger to him and his company"As far as bolding Mythology: Vishnu is literally statted out. That is an actively worshipped deity in the real world. Same thing with the deities of the Chinese Folk Religion that are put into the book.Foreign religious figures were treated as fair game 'cause they're "Myths" rather than, y'know, Religious Figures of the Abrahamic religion which are treated as if they're real and thus something not to be messed with.Because of the inherent biases of the writers and the company and the culture they're writing from.See? Just like this.Certainly not on this forum because it's a forum about D&D. Which is why we're discussing D&D related stuff. But that's a cute Strawman you've built to try and undermine my position with an Ad Hominem accusing me of being a hypocrite.It's giving "Whataboutism"Well I guess if you've got a few allegorical examples of some friends of yours who are okay with it being a thing no one anywhere is ever allowed to say anything different!And certainly not allowed to use it as a jumping off point to indicate the inherent biases in TSR choosing to represent real world religious figures as entities you can kill -except- for the Christian ones.Gee. It's almost like I'm not saying "Making Vishnu statted out is a bad thing" with no other basis for argumentation, and what I'm -really- saying is that the exclusion of the Abrahamic god, his saints, his son, etc, is a telling note as to what people consider "Real" or "Mythological" based on their inherent cultural biases.Because, surely, protesting invariably results in a reduction of individual authors separately using specific terminology which shows their individual cognitive biases and we can see that in practice... um....Have we -ever- seen that in practice?I guess book burnings and bans in school libraries are an example, but those invariably rely on the majority attacking minority groups for some unfathomable reason.No, not really. Because that's a whole -other- discussion from the actual thrust of my post, which you seem to have ignored in favor of whatever windmills you're tilting at over there.Good for you!The book didn't.And that still represents a significant cultural bias... you get that, right? Making AO or the Tetragrammaton or whatever into an "Overdeity" who is more powerful than all other gods makes a political statement.Cool beans. Still not the point. And also Epic Boons exist in 5e (if you're even talking about 5e) for 'Levels Above 20' in the 2014 DMG. Are they not in the 2024 DMG?Ah, who am I kidding? This is, once more, another irrelevant aside to the argument I'm making! Gallop along, Gish!Oh, -obviously- they would LOGICALLY have to be BEYOND Greater Gods. Because math, purely and exclusively.It's not as if this is all a fantasy game into which we're pouring a bunch of cultural baggage and pretending it's totes cool and follows any kind of logical structure.And there'd be no point! Because... um... R-...reasons?Sure. That is a way that something could be implemented.But it wasn't. Showing the biases of the writers and company. Which is the point.[ATTACH=full]387811[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification